Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 14, 2024, has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 lists several compounds having an amount with an endpoint of 0%. In addition, claim 13, which is dependent upon claim 12 states that the ratio of a content of B2O3 to a content of P2O5 is 2.5 to 500. However, in claim 12, these compounds, among others, are present in the amount of 0%. Therefore, it is unclear how there can be a ratio when the compounds may not be present in the glass. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dejneka et al. (US 2014/0356576). Dejneka et al. disclose a glass composition that comprises silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, lithium oxide. The glass composition has a Young’s modulus of least 80 GPa (abstract). The glass composition comprises: 55-82 mole% of silicon dioxide, 3-30 mole% of aluminum oxide, ≥ 10 mole% of sodium oxide-potassium oxide-lithium oxide, 0-5 mole% of boron trioxide, 0.5-8 mole% of magnesium oxide-calcium oxide-zinc oxide and 0-5 mole% of zirconium dioxide-titanium dioxide-hafnium(IV) oxide-niobium pentoxide-tantalum pentoxide-lanthanum oxide-yttrium(III) oxide; or ≥ 55 mole% of silicon dioxide, ≥ 3 mole% of aluminum oxide, ≥ 3 mole% of lithium oxide, 60-85 mole% of silicon dioxide-aluminum oxide, ≥ 10 mole% of sodium oxide-potassium oxide-lithium oxide, 0.5-8 mole% of magnesium oxide-calcium oxide-zinc oxide, and 0-5 mole% of zirconium dioxide-titanium dioxide-hafnium(IV) oxide-niobium pentoxide-tantalum pentoxide-lanthanum oxide-yttrium(III) oxide. The glass composition comprises ≥ 5 mole% of lithium oxide. The glass composition further comprises a fining agent in an amount of ≤ 0.5 mole%. The glass composition is at least substantially free of zirconium dioxide and/or titanium dioxide. Typical composition is comprised of: 67.01 mole% of silicon dioxide; 10.14 mole% of aluminum oxide; 6.30 mole% of lithium oxide; 11.32 mole% of sodium oxide; 0.27 mole% of potassium oxide; 2.15 mole% of magnesium oxide; 1.80 mole% of calcium oxide; 1.02 mole% of zirconium oxide; and 0.01 mole% of iron(III) oxide (0008-0012).
At least one major surface of the glass article has a surface compressive stress of at least 200 MPa and a surface compressive layer having a depth of at least 30 μm (0013). Once a glass article has been formed by a down-draw method, it can be subjected to chemical strengthening by ion exchange. As used herein, the term “ion-exchange” is understood to mean that the glass is strengthened by ion exchange processes that are known to those skilled in the glass fabrication arts. By way of explanation, such ion exchange processes involve, for example, treating a heated glass article with a heated solution of an alkali metal salt containing ions having a larger ionic radius than ions that are present in the glass surface, thus replacing the smaller ions with the larger ions. The replacement of smaller ions by larger ions at a temperature below that at which the glass network can relax produces a distribution of ions across the surface of the glass that results in a stress profile. The larger volume of the incoming ion produces compressive stress on the surface and tension in the center of the glass. The compressive stress (CS) is related to the central tension (CT) by the following relationship:
CS=CT*(t−2DOL)/DOL where t is the thickness of the glass and DOL is the depth of the ion exchanged layer. In this formula, the stress profile is assumed to be triangular. As described above, three types of ion exchange generally can be carried out with respect to the glass articles formed by the compositions disclosed herein: Na.sup.+-for-Li.sup.+ exchange, K.sup.+-for-Li.sup.+ exchange, and K.sup.+-for-Na.sup.+ exchange. Thus, the salt solution used for such an ion exchange process can include a potassium-containing salt, a sodium-containing salt, or both. As stated above, down-draw processes produce surfaces that are relatively pristine. Given that the strength of the glass surface is controlled by the amount and size of surface flaws, a pristine surface that has had minimal contact has a higher initial strength. When this high strength glass is then chemically strengthened by ion exchange, the resultant strength is higher than that of a surface that has been lapped and polished. Chemical strengthening by ion exchange also increases the resistance of the glass to flaw formation due to handling. Thus, strengthened glass articles having high surface smoothness can be produced.
Specifically, the glass articles described herein generally have surface compressive stresses of at least about 200 megapascals (MPa). In certain implementations, the glass articles can have CS values of at least about 450 MPa. In addition, the CS layers generally have a depth of at least about 30 micrometers (μm). In certain implementations, the DOL can be at least about 40 μm.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 13-14, while the Dejneka et al. reference discloses the sheet thickness and compressive stress and the Young’s modulus and the same amount of components in the glass composition, it fails to specifically disclose the claimed properties of the present invention. However, given that the glass and processing in both the Dejneka et al. and the present invention appear to be so similar that the properties would be inherent in the glass of Dejneka et al. or that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting properties (MPEP 2112). Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, all of the claimed properties would be either inherent and/or obvious in the glass of the Dejneka et al. reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WO 201905342 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ULA CORINNA RUDDOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-1481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Srilakshmi K Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ULA C RUDDOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729